This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have reached this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here.
In general, initially I look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, and if so, if this can be resolved quickly by myself. If it looks like there may be significant and/or several minor issues, I'll open a GAR to see the extent of the problems. If it looks like there are sufficient concerns to put the GA listing in jeopardy, and that significant work is needed to resolve the concerns, I will notify the main contributors to the article, and put the GAR on hold. SilkTork✔Tea time 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Y There are some short paragraphs, which inhibits flow, and is against the advice in WP:Layout, but nothing else stands out. Looks to be OK. SilkTork✔Tea time 17:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
There are some short paragraphs, which inhibits flow, and is against the advice in WP:Layout, but nothing else stands out. Looks to be OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)